January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 8, 2014

    FWD from FrankD:

    What do you think is the cause of the increased rate, Betula?

    Let’s remember that water expands when it warms up and ice melts when it warms up, both of which cause mean sea level to rise.

    Let’s factor in that pesky long term GAT graph that you won’t talk about, plus any OHC reconstruction you like for the last few decades, and those world glacier mass balance graphs you don’t want to discuss and…

    What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?

    You *still* have not told us. Please answer those questions before we continue further.

  2. #2 andyuk
    uk
    February 9, 2014

    in the uk, we are seeing another massive climate change related event, and there is still zero mention of the ultimate cause on the mainstream news or linking it to all the other frightening climate events around the globe. they have predictably diverted attention away from climate change, (and doing something rational about it), by blathering on about a trivial and peripheral issue, dredging rivers. pathetic.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    February 9, 2014

    andyuk

    …there is still zero mention of the ultimate cause on the mainstream news or linking it to all the other frightening climate events around the globe.

    Not quite, Met Office: Evidence ‘suggests climate change link to storms’ .

    Now, avoid food or drink whilst visiting the next link:

    Climate science is for second-raters says world’s greatest atmospheric physicist .

    Delingpole bis now flailing around and should be retired but Lindzen deserves greater sanctions for this exchange if the quote is not munged by Delingpole, my emphasis:

    Was Lindzen suggesting, asked Tim Yeo at this point, that scientists in the field of climate were academically inferior.

    “Oh yeah,” said Lindzen. “I don’t think there’s any question that the brightest minds went into physics, math, chemistry…”

    WTF does Lindzen think underpins climate science? If he believes what he says then this could be evidence that Lindzen has thoroughly lost the plot. Habitual tobacco use has been implicated in the onset of degenerative brain diseases, maybe that is it. Whatever it is clear that Lindzen is no longer credible, at any level, and Curry is chasing his shadow.

  4. #4 BBD
    February 9, 2014

    Lionel A

    From the BBC link:

    At Prime Minister’s Questions last month, Mr Cameron said he “suspected” that the recent storms to batter the UK and the extreme weather in North America were connected to global temperature changes – an argument challenged by some Conservative MPs and peers.

    The political right, digging its own grave with its bare hands. But too stupid to see the writing on the sea wall.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2014
  6. #6 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    Betty, I challenge you to prove that the IPCC predicted temperature trend of +0.17C per decade is wrong from the temperature records of the surface temperature records.

    Feel free to use any global dataset of surface temperature records.

  7. #7 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “Betty, I challenge you to prove that the IPCC predicted temperature trend of +0.17C per decade is wrong from the temperature records of the surface temperature records”

    Why? Did I say this was wrong somewhere? I don’t remember that conversation, please provide the link.

    Thanks.

  8. #8 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    Why?

    Because if you can’t prove the IPCC wrong, then you can’t say the IPCC are wrong.

    OR is evidence something you don’t believe in?

    Did I say this was wrong somewhere?

    Yes.

    I don’t remember that conversation

    Really? I don’t believe you.

    please provide the link.

    Sorry, you never showed that the IPCC was wrong, so how can I show the link where you show the IPCC wrong?

  9. #9 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Betty

    Please answer the questions *repeated* at # 1.

  10. #10 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “Because if you can’t prove the IPCC wrong, then you can’t say the IPCC are wrong”

    Right. You can’t prove a prediction of future scenarios based on incomplete data. Not right. Not wrong.

    Thanks for agreeing.

  11. #11 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “What do you think is the cause of the increased rate, Betula?”

    Don’t know. But I do know that data doesn’t include an unexpected drop of 7mm in 2011. Supposedly because Australia is a sponge or something…

    Also, remember…” It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.”

    Won’t allow me to link, but source is wiki “Current Sea Level Rise”

  12. #12 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “What do you think is the cause of the increased rate, Betula?”

    Don’t know.

    But you insist you know it isn’t AGW, Betty, dear.

    How can you know that if you don’t know what it was?

  13. #13 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    You can’t prove a prediction of future scenarios based on incomplete data.

    Maybe not, but that’s not what you or I were talking about, we were talking about PAST data: neither of us think there has been any temperature haitus.

    But somehow you’re unable to actually express your disbelief in a temperature haitus because that means the temperature has been climbing and climbing all along.

    What is it about that which makes you incapable of saying what you think, when you so clearly will repeat any old rubbish you think of if it comes up with the opposite conclusion?

  14. #14 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    You…”Because if you can’t prove the IPCC wrong, then you can’t say the IPCC are wrong”

    Me…”You can’t prove a prediction of future scenarios based on incomplete data”

    You…”Maybe not, but that’s not what you or I were talking about, we were talking about PAST data”

    Me…We were talking about proving the IPCC wrong, and since the IPCC is all about predicting future scenarios, there is nothing to be proved.
    As far as IPCC and “hiatus”, it’s a fact that they use the term “hiatus” over a dozen times in their AR5 draft summary. Prove me wrong.

    You…”you so clearly will repeat any old rubbish you think of if it comes up with the opposite conclusion”

    Me…I repeated the IPCC’S own words, so now you think the IPCC is “rubbish”?

    Encirclement.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    You…”Maybe not, but that’s not what you or I were talking about, we were talking about PAST data”

    Me…We were talking about proving the IPCC wrong

    Yes, and that is in the past, so your whine “You can’t prove a prediction of future scenarios based on incomplete data” is irrelevant, betty dearest.

    Me…I repeated the IPCC’S own words, so now you think the IPCC is “rubbish”?

    No, you’re speaking rubbish and hiding behind nonsense you spout, dearie.

    You’ve agreed with the scientists that there has been no haitus, then you put quotes around words that say there has been a haitus, then you claim you’ve never said a thing.

    Please make up your mind yourself, or are you incapable of that?

  16. #16 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    As far as IPCC and “hiatus”, it’s a fact that they use the term “hiatus” over a dozen times in their AR5 draft summary. Prove me wrong.

    Yup, when you morons squeal with delight “there’s been a haitus”, then someone who says “there is no haitus” has used the term haitus in their rebuttal.

    Mentioning the word haitus is not proof that the haitus exists.

    Prove me wrong.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    PS is this the best your chums could do to dig you out of this shithole you’ve dug yourself (and filled with their excrement)?

  18. #18 Lionel A
    February 11, 2014

    Betula
    February 11, 2014

    Will you start trying to blockquote so that your unintelligible is at least readable?

    Now answer the questions in the Feb thread.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    Lionel,

    Don’t care about avoiding blockquote. If someone takes something quoted as something said because the formatting betty can manage is a bit shit, well, that’s betty’s problem. If they wanted to be clearer, there are better ways of doing it, but otherwise, any “mistake” engendered by the poor presentation betty manages to pinch out here are not failures of others but itself.

Current ye@r *